Lunchbox Links

by RaptorsHQ - Defensive Stance on Nov 22, 2010 3:06 PM EST in Daily Links

Sebastian Pruiti's NBA Playbook blog takes a look at the Toronto Raptors' crazy comeback against the Boston Celtics.

Before you get too excited about Andrea Bargnani's last few games, remember this is the same player who ranks third on Arturo Galletti's list of the 100 Worst Players in the NBA since 1978.

Bryan Colangelo talks about the trade with the New Orleans Hornets, which sheds light on expiring deals in the NBA. And, most importantly, Rick Kamla and Dennis Scott discuss the fantasy implications.

The Score's Holly MacKenzie chats with Ben Golliver from Blazersedge and CBS Sports about newest Raptor Jerryd Bayless.

Rookie Ed Davis embarks on a rehabilitation and conditioning assignment.

As ESPN's Bill Simmons notes in his NBA Western Conference retro preview, Colangelo had a choice between paying Beasley $11 million for two years (with a qualifying offer of $8.1 million in 2012-13) or signing Amir Johnson for $34 million for five years … and chose Johnson!? Did he suffer a head injury right before the 2006 draft and not tell us?

Would you have guessed the Raptors were among the surprise teams of the young season? Basketball-Reference.com thinks so.

The Raptors move up one spot in Courtside Analyst's NBA Power Index and Basketball-Reference.com's Schedule-Adjusted Offensive and Defensive Ratings. They've also moved up quite a bit in the NBeh? blog's team stats update.

Tweet Comment 24 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Arturo Galletti

What a load of horse shit. You’d rather have the likes of Nikoloz Tskitishvili, Jake Voskuhl and Ruben Boumtje-Boumtje over Bargnani? Come on, DS, even you know that article is ridiculous. Al Thornton’s the worst player in the NBA since 1978? Ok there…

by HDave on Nov 22, 2010 3:18 PM EST reply actions

Hey, I’m not the one writing the “100 Worst Players Since 1978” post. I’m just linking to it (and yes, chuckling a little under my breath).

But here’s the thing about the rankings: At some point, you have to ask why Bargnani is ranked among the likes of Al Thornton and John Amaechi? Obviously, he’s a way better scorer than a lot of those players. That’s why you see such divergent opinions on Bargs. As you know, All-Star selections and giant free agent contracts are mostly tied to scoring numbers alone.

So is there a big conspiracy to create a stats-based evaluation that skewers Bargs? Or is there something else at work? Perhaps his atrocious defence?

That being said, it would be interesting to see if Bargnani’s WP48 numbers show some kind of uptick in relation to his and the team’s stronger play in the last few games.

by RaptorsHQ - Defensive Stance on Nov 22, 2010 3:32 PM EST up reply actions

Questions

1. What is the ultimate point of these measures (WP/ Win shares/ PER)? Do they in some way contribute to increased enjoyment of the game? In some ways I see them as a way for some people to better relate to the game, but I don’t see them as really adding to my enjoyment, so they don’t hold too much weight for me as a fan who enjoys what happens on the court. I imagine there are very few that go running to their bedrooms after games to try to calculate the in-game PER and its impact on the season overall.

2. Basketball as a TEAM sport may be harder to break down in terms of INDIVIDUAL impact than some would have us believe.

3. If a lineup were decided simply on WP or PER, would the games be enjoyable to WATCH?

4. The Bargnani situation – he simply does not fit any of these measures. His supporters should accept that and free themselves of the burden of trying to justify to disciples of these measures that he deserves a spot on an NBA roster. Watch the games, see him improve, and enjoy. But here’s the question. If you were to replace his actual rebounding numbers with the average number for his position and then recalculated his WP, how much would it change?

5. Does Bargnani make his teammates better with respect to these measures? How much does a teammates PER/WS/WP change when Bargnani is on the court with them vs. off the court?

Happiness is that which gets lost in the details of its pursuit.

by HQ Interloper on Nov 22, 2010 4:02 PM EST up reply actions

What is the ultimate point of these measures (WP/ Win shares/ PER)? Do they in some way contribute to increased enjoyment of the game?

Big surprise, I know, but I really enjoy advanced stats. I like that they are attempting to analyze the game beyond the traditional box score (which is possibly one of the most useless inventions ever).

Ultimately though, these advanced stats should be embraced by front office types. So instead of saying, “hey, let me acquire the horrible player who hit a couple of big shots on TV” *cough*Hedo*cough*, I’ll make an INFORMED personnel decision that I don’t have to reverse later with a panic trade.

If a lineup were decided simply on WP or PER, would the games be enjoyable to WATCH?

Well, arguably, you’d get the best players and lineup combinations on the floor. So that kind of answers itself.

But here’s the question. If you were to replace his actual rebounding numbers with the average number for his position and then recalculated his WP, how much would it change?

This is a great question. Anyone want to take a stab at answering this? I’ll see what I can dig up.

by RaptorsHQ - Defensive Stance on Nov 22, 2010 4:56 PM EST up reply actions

Wow – that IS a good question. Makes me mad I didn’t think of it.

by dhackett1565 on Nov 22, 2010 7:25 PM EST up reply actions

analyze the game beyond the traditional box score (which is possibly one of the most useless inventions ever).

I think there is some irony in this considering advanced stats are based almost entirely on the traditional box score. While I think advanced stats are useful, the only thing they can tell you that the box score can’t (atleast directly) is how a player is doing over a period of time and/or in comparison to X (where X may be the league average, or another player etc)

Everything is right there in the box score if you use a critical eye. On a game to game basis it can tell you more than any advanced stat can (who they played against, minutes played, foul trouble etc). The one thing advanced stats do is compile the information (over a period of time) to make it easier to read and save time. Which is extremely useful.

However some can be offset by adding certain weights and measures to a stat (ie. why is one rebound more valuable than another, depending on both type and position? A rebound is a rebound, and no matter who gets it or which end of the court they get it, it serves the same purpose…. ie. another possession). Other times they can be purely theoretical (per min)

That said, it seems the people with the biggest opposition to advanced stats (atleast around here) are those who see Bargs as a good player. I think this has a lot more to do with what advanced stats say about Bargs and the individuals opinion of them, rather than the actual value of the statistic. (ie. a stat says Bargs is not a good player, and therefore that stat is seen as inaccurate).

As for how does Bargs WP change if average rebounds for his position replaces his actual rebounding numbers – its irrelevant because he doesn’t achieve those numbers.

by Not so Friendly Stranger on Nov 23, 2010 7:55 AM EST up reply actions

Its irrelevant because he doesn’t achieve those numbers.

What a stupid thing to say. I don’t mean to be rude here, but anyone with experience in using statistics would tell you that one of the primary functions of using them in the first place is to be able to isolate cause and effect. If he were to get more rebounds, and this would improve his WP48, and we accept the premise that WP48 correlates directly with team success, then criticism of his rebounding would be supported by the statistical evidence given by WP48.

If there is no strong correlation, and we still accept the correlation between WP48 and team success, then many members who are supportive of the WP48 stat would need to rethink their stance on the importance of Bargnani’s rebounding. This would likely lead to a discussion of the true value of rebounding, and whether an offensive specialist (like Bargs) can exist successfully at the C spot, which has been a discussion held here for a long time.

You’ve been here. You know the type of discussions that are held here on a daily basis, and you know that stats play a big role in them. To say that the dependence on a statistic that is held in high regard by many on a particular aspect of a player’s game is ‘irrelevant’ because ‘he gets what he gets’ is just being ignorant of the cause and effect nature of statistics.

by dhackett1565 on Nov 23, 2010 8:17 AM EST up reply actions

I understand that

But, the use of statistics (atleast accurate statistics) requires neutrality… which we are not getting in the situation. While the numbers themselves don’t lie, the analysis and methods can.

Not sure how adjusting just Bargs rebounding numbers, to one statistic and one equation, gives any accuracy. Its not being done in comparison to other players, or other statistics or other equations.

So while there will be a change in the results of the equation, how can you say there is or isn’t a correlation when its not being compared to a change in other players or other stats. (eg. the result may show a small correlation between rbs and winning, but that correlation may be larger/smaller than any other statistic… which isn’t being analyzed.)

This is irrevant because its an exercise in futility.

by Not so Friendly Stranger on Nov 23, 2010 9:20 AM EST up reply actions

By that argument – statistics tell us nothing about anything. Maybe holding opponents to a lower field goal percentage helps you win – but maybe not – it could be coincidence or maybe some other factor unseen.

The point of seeing the effect of rebounding on WP48 would be to see if, in an imaginary world, a Bargs clone who performs exactly as Bargs does now, except with 5 more rebounds per game would have a significantly different effect on the team’s ability to win.

Clearly the stats only show related results, with causes like playing style, effort, focus, luck, and even opposition and teammates. But that’s all stats are – measurable indicators of intangible causes.

The analysis and method used here is called WP48. If you don’t subscribe to the statistic, so be it, but for anyone who does, since the method and analysis remains the same regardless of whether we apply Bargs’ real stats, his previous years’ stats or a fake set of stats, the outcome should be fairly and neutrally indicative of what this statistical measure predicts for the effect of Bargnani’s lack-luster rebounding game.

by dhackett1565 on Nov 23, 2010 1:56 PM EST up reply actions

I'm not saying

statistics don’t tell us nothing about anything. Far from it.

Its not the #s its the analysis and methods…. man for a ‘stats guy’ thats day one of stats 101.

In this case increasing Bargs rebounds to what a “average C” would, will only tell us that his WP 48 will increase from X (being his existing number) to X+Y (his existing number plus the increase to average rebounding #s)… which means nothing. Its the exact same relationship you would get if you changed Jose’s rebounding numbers or Shaqs etc. Its not being compared to another stat (such as steals for example) or another player, or another equation in order to get that correlation you claimed could be concluded from it. All you will get is he is a better player if he rebounds more…. thats not exactly rocket science.

If you want to get a true picture of how rebounding effects said equation, its results and a correlation you need to do alot more than increase one players stats (in this case Bargs rebounding numbers) to some random (or specific) quantity.

by Not so Friendly Stranger on Nov 23, 2010 3:19 PM EST up reply actions

Here’s the thing. I didn’t say he would be a better player. I said we would see whether he would be a better player.

And in an equation-based statistic, where rebounds are assigned a static value, simply increasing his rebound totals will show you the effect of higher rebounds on that statistic. So would increasing Jose’s to Shaq’s level. Whether that is possible or not is not the argument – the question is how beneficial it would be (if at all).

For example: most people on here say Bargs’ rebounding is awful, and those who subscribe to WP48 say this is the main reason. If we artifically change bargs’ stats so he is a good rebounder, and he has only a slight improvement in WP48, either WP48 is flawed, and is not reflecting reality, or Bargnani’s ability to rebound is not important.

Your argument that it needs to be compared to another stat is completely incorrect, The whole point of these stats is to be a catch-all representation of a player’s value – and the importance of rebounding in terms of wins does not need to be quantified in relation to steals, or anything else. It is quantified in wins – the measure of production upon which this entire concept is based.

by dhackett1565 on Nov 23, 2010 8:48 PM EST up reply actions

As for how rebounding affects his WP48…

The formula is ridiculously convoluted, but for an intermediate value (PROD) which doesn’t take into account team effects and team defence, and applied on a per 48 minute basis, his values are as shown below (a higher number is better).

This is effectively WP48, but without the convenient correlation to actual wins.

Current (6.65 REB/48): PROD/48 = 0.240
Improved rebounding (10 REB/48): PROD/48 = 0.354

This won’t simply scale up his WP48, since the following calculations involve using differences with league averages, but it gives an idea – maybe he moves into positive WP?

Just a quick and dirty look – someone with better understanding of the calculations should do a full calculation and comparison between Bargs and the fictional super-Bargs.

by dhackett1565 on Nov 23, 2010 3:11 PM EST up reply actions

"Basketball as a TEAM sport may be harder to break down in terms of INDIVIDUAL impact than some would have us believe."

but its not hard to break down his individual impact on defense. And it is a team sport and he hurts the team defensively.

by Not so Friendly Stranger on Nov 23, 2010 7:04 AM EST up reply actions

bill simmons need to lay off the crack

its funny you posted that garbage that idiot simmons wrote..writing bout beasley…we had a discussion bout this yesterday before the game started and most of us think hes an idiot..im glad BC didnt go for beasley…and after what amirs been doing latley ( yesterday for example) i think its pretty safe to say most of us would take amirs contract over going for beasley any day of the week. just cause beasley is putting up fantasy numbers on a garbage team like the wolves BC is an idiot not to have gotten for him..ummm nope im glad we passed on beasley

by sherwin316 on Nov 22, 2010 5:08 PM EST reply actions

Whoa whoa whoa

Bill Simmons is the best sports writer in the world today, hands-down.

As for Beasley, I probably would have liked if we’d taken a chance on him, I mean there was nothing to lose.

by RaptorsAddict on Nov 22, 2010 5:10 PM EST up reply actions

Bill Simmons is the most entertaining sports writer, but he is far from the best.

by DW19 on Nov 22, 2010 6:02 PM EST up reply actions

Journalism = entertainment in this world o’ ours, hadn’t you heard?

by dhackett1565 on Nov 22, 2010 7:26 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

in the world?

where does the world starts and stops for you?

by renato on Nov 23, 2010 12:26 AM EST up reply actions

Wrong on Simmons

A must read, and good podcasts when discussing basketball.
He never professes to be a know-it-all and this time he is wrong on Amir. No knock against Beasley, who I would of gladly taken for 1 of Miami’s #1 picks but Amir will be good and well worth the money.
Whats the SG’s email address. We should bombard him.

by Tinmann on Nov 22, 2010 10:06 PM EST up reply actions

Simmons is as ignorant as the rest of the ESPN idiots about Amir’s contract, which is for $30mil only, and his current contract was at $4 mil when he signed for 5 years, with the last year not fully guaranteed at this time. And how can you compare a SF with a PF/C at what ever cost??? Beasly would not be a fit with the Raptors in position, character, ability or cost to fill the role that Johnson can and will.

by Johnn19 on Nov 22, 2010 11:45 PM EST up reply actions

maybe he is good

But I’m just stun he would go at BC like that..you would think we passed up the next Jordan or something..its beasley..he hasn’t done anything since being in the league, is a pot head, wanted to kill himself, and when wade needed a second scorer in the playoffs to help him both times beasley flopped..now he’s putting up good numbers on the T-wolves and BC is an idiot for not getting him? What if we got him where would he play? We are stacked at the wing and he’s too small to play the 4..there just wouldn’t be playing time for him.

by sherwin316 on Nov 22, 2010 6:08 PM EST via mobile reply actions

Beasley

Is Bosh-lite (with a better 3 pt shot), without the track record, and pretty much the same defensive ability (lousy). Pairing him with Andrea, not only magnifies AB’s deficiencies, it takes the whole Bosh/Bargs combo to a lower limit (without any upside to justify it).
.
Minnesota may be #1 in Offensive Rb (courtesy of K. Love – wow!), 10th in FT-Attempts, 9th in 3pt Attempts (13th in %), but they’re 4-10, and the opposition is scoring 9 more points a game (109.9 – 100.6).

Sometimes you have to look at the bigger picture.
.

by RapthoseLeafs on Nov 22, 2010 7:18 PM EST reply actions

Pairing him with Andrea, not only magnifies AB’s deficiencies, it takes the whole Bosh/Bargs combo to a lower limit (without any upside to justify it).

by RaptorsHQ - Defensive Stance on Nov 23, 2010 10:23 AM EST up reply actions

Re: Simmons

I assume that Simmons posted his thoughts before Amir johnson had 17 pts, 11 rbs, 2asts and a blk in a mere 24 minutes of action against Bill’s beloved Celtics. Perhaps Amir read Bill’s column before the game ;)

by DW19 on Nov 23, 2010 8:31 AM EST reply actions